G. K.

Matthew

The Design of Modeled Cam Systems

Research Associate.

D. Tesar

Part I: Dynamic Synthesis and Chart Design

Professor.

For the Two-Degree-of-Freedom Model

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida

An extension of the dynamic synthesis philosophy given earlier [l]1 for cam follower systems is made in terms of a two-degree-of-freedom model. Three additional
dimensionless
parameters r\, X, 7 for the distribution of mass, spring, and dashpot content are sufficient
to describe this more complex system relative to the single degree-of-freedom coefficients. Charts in terms of -q, X, 7 are presented to assist in choosing the best set of these
values. Finally, "rules of thumb" are given which are applicable to a wide range of mechanical systems.

Introduction

The cam follower system is found with considerable regularity

in most automatic processing equipment. Also, it is representative of a larger class of small motion mechanical devices made up
of gearing and linkages. Its wide use is primarily due to its compactness and versatility in providing a very wide range of motion
functions. It is well known, however, that cams frequently fail
due to material fatigue or become noisy from excessive wear, all
of which implies that they are load limited. Because of their wide
application and inherent sensitivity to dynamic over-load, critical
design procedures may be warranted. The objective of this paper
is to provide the designer with easily used but powerful tools to
accomplish this critical design.
The one-degree-of-freedom model was used [1] to generate a
large collection of fundamental "rules of t h u m b " for dynamic systems, particularly the concept of speed classification. The question arises, however, with regard to the accuracy of this model for
all conceivable systems. Many, more closely resemble the two degree-of-freedom model. It is clear that an elementary procedure is
required to judge which model is most appropriate to represent a
given system. The vehicle to be used to make this judgment is
dynamic synthesis. The primary criteria are the smoothness of
the resulting cam surface and the character of the internal force
functions. The only distinguishing features of the two degree system are its distribution parameters for the mass, spring, and
dashpot content. These parameters TJ, X, 7 are bounded by the

range 0 to 1 at which values the representation reduces to a onedegree-of-freedom model. In addition to choosing these distribution parameters, the designer must specify the functional nature
of the output motion for the system. Is this motion to be based on
classical, trapezoidal, harmonic, polynomial, or empirical curves?
To assist in making these decisions rapidly, design charts which
clearly describe the above criteria in terms of the distribution parameters would prove invaluable.
2

One-Degree-of-Freedom Model
The one-degree-of-freedom 2 model consists of a return spring
Kr, a dashpot coefficient Cr, a mass M, and a system spring rate
K. Specifying the output motion of a cam system implies that the
function y = f{d) and all its derivatives y', y", . . . are known relative to the cam rotation parameter 8. The design objective is to
obtain S = f(d) as the cam surface shape function required to
specify the cam configuration for manufacture. Assuming that the
design speed of the cam aa is constant, the dynamic synthesis
equation becomes
nmy"

+ IJ-CV' +

fv

Moo/

Mc

(2)
(3)

K
K

+Kr
K

Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.

Contributed by the MechanismsDED Division of THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS and presented at the Mechanisms Conference, New York, October 6-10, 1974. Manuscript received at
ASME Headquarters, June 18,1974. Paper No. 74-DET-43.

(1)

where

(4)

It has been shown [1] that p.m is the most important criterion for
"speed classification" of dynamic systems. The larger the value of
Mm, the more care required in the design of the system. For exam2

Henceforth, DOF will denote degree-of-freedom.

NOVEMBER 1975 /

Journal of Engineering for Industry

Copyright 1975 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

1175

AUUiiUli

will significantly reduce the effect of off-speed motion distortion and make the system less likely to
develop significant wear and consequent noise.

y,, y,>y,

Relative to \im, the other coefficients fic, Mfe m equation (1) a r e

much less significant. Vibrational deformations in high speed machinery are normally small in comparison to gross motions in
order to maintain operational accuracy. Hence, friction as represented by tic would be largely ineffective and large values for MC
should be discouraged to keep operating efficiency high. Also, the
return spring rate Kr is usually much less than the system spring
K making M/J 1 f r most systems. It follows that the dominant
coefficient for the design of mechanical devices undergoing high
dynamic loads is /xm.

y2 y 2 . y 2

3 Dynamic Synthesis for Two Degrees-of-Freedom

Fig. 1

The two-degree-of-freedom system model

pie, a means to judge the smoothness of the S = f{6) function is

to require that S" be finite. This clearly means that y"" must be
finite as seen by differentiating equation (1) twice. The relative
importance to be placed on the properties of y"" depends on the
dimensionless coefficient fim in the synthesis equation. Here, t
'term "high speed" will correspond to large values of Mm which
vary from 10~ 6 for very low speed systems to 10~ 2 for very high
speed systems. Clearly, the critical nature of the required design is
indicated by Mm from which the following recommendations can be
made:
Mm 10" 6 Fr low-speed systems, presently accepted methods of
rigid body cam design where S = y are sufficient.
fim c^ 10" 4 For medium-speed systems, the designer may wish to
use trapezoidal motion specifications [2], minimize
peak values of y" to reduce off-speed distortion of
the specified motion, synthesize the cam at design
speed ud by using equation (1), and use good manufacture.
Mm ^ 10" 2 For high-speed systems, very smooth motion such as
polynomial motion specification [3] is recommended. Keep the peak values of y" oun within reasonable bds to reduce off-speed motion distortion. Dynamic synthesis at design speed is imperative and
the best available manufacture is warranted. The
system should be carefully re-examined to determine whether the one DOF model is adequate.
Every effort should be made to reduce the system
mass M and increase the system rigidity K to reduce the effective value of fim. Lower values of \im

Modeling of the cam follower system is a fundamental task of

the designer and requires patience and skill [4, 5, 6]. Here, it is
assumed that the model in Fig. (1) is known in terms of the 8 parameters K,i, C,i, Mi, K\, K,-2, Cr2, M2, K2. Without assistance,
the designer would soon be bewildered by the 8 magnitude of
systems to be treated. Introduction of three nondimensional distribution parameters q, X, 7 for the mass, spring, and dashpot
content will be sufficient to describe the unique properties of the
two DOF system relative to the one DOF system.
The free body diagram for the masses in Fig. (2) are composed
of the following forces:

^
FK2

=Kt

(y2~yi)

+Pt

= K2(S - y 2 ) + P j + P 2

FKr^Kxyi+Px
FKri=Kriyi
F

+P2

dyx
n dt
dy2

cri =

Cri -

~rl

d t

where
Pi, Pi = r e t u r n s p r i n g p r e l o a d s
y i , y% = m a s s d i s p l a c e m e n t s m e a s u r e d f r o m s t a t i c
equilibrium
S = cam surface shape factor

(5)

The nature of the output motion y% = f(t) is fundamental to good

cam design and is the central problem facing the designer. The
cam surface shape factor S must be transformed through the geometry of the follower to obtain the manufacturing data to create
the cam [7, 8]. The output work function Fw will not be included
in the following derivation since its form cannot be easily general-

Nomenclature.
Cr, Cr , Cr2 = system model viscons
damping
F = forces in the cam system
K, K\, K2 - system model internal
spring
Krv Kr2 - system model
spring

return

M, M i , M2 = system model mass

S = cam shape factor
y.y'.y"

1176

motion
specification
and derivatives

NOVEMBER 1975

A, Aj, A2 = reciprocals of K,
K2, respectively

K\,

An, A r2 = ratio of Kri, Kr2, to K

y = dimensionless damping
distribution parameter
r\ = dimensionless mass distribution parameters
X = dimensionless deformation distribution parameter

one-degree-of -freedom
dimensionless
parameters for synthesis
Pi (i = 0,1,2,3,4)
two-degree-of-freedom
dimensionless
parameters for synthesis
<r;(i = 0,1,2,3,4) = two-degree-of-freedom
dimensionless
parameters for force
analysis
cam rotation angle
Wd
cam rotational design
speed
f-m,

fJ-c, Mi

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

vvy.

M,

K,

1 __i *

Fig.2

y2> y2' h

Fig. 3 Graphical representation of cam synthesis for two degrees of

freedom

Free body diagram

ized due to its special nature in any particular application. Its

use in a given cam design problem can be easily integrated into
the synthesis equations which follow.
The dynamic force balance for mass M i is
F
=**<-**..
M
"n ~ c_.- n

Mi^&dP

Ki dt2

Kx

dt

(7)

y\ = y 2

Ki

The force balance for mass M2 becomes

M,

d2y2

K2

dp

(8)

K\

or
M2 d2y2
K2 dP

,Cj2udy2
K2 dt

, Kj+K2+
K,

Kr2 .,

Kt

:S

*-&*

(9)

The classical vibration analysis problem involves the determination for the output motion yi(t) given out an explicit driving function S(t). Here, the output motion and all its derivatives y\(t),
dyi/dt, d 2 yi/dt 2 . . . are specified in advance by the designer to
meet functional requirements of the application. Assuming that
id is a constant operating speed for the cam, the relation between
the dynamic and geometric derivatives is

d"y
dt"

- de

(10)

[u>i

>

Using this relation and combining equations (7) and (9) gives the
synthesis equation for the cam shape factor S as follows:
M
S =

\M2
KXK2

4
dyi

MjjOfj +Kri)

M2Cn
+Mi{Ki

+ MjCrj
KiK2
+K2

+Kr2)

(Kt + K ) +C

KtKri

Distribution Parameters 77, X, 7

The present formulation of the p, is too confused to enable

rapid interpretation by the designer. Three new dimensionless
parameters <t\, X, 7 for the distribution of mass, spring, and dashpot content, respectively, will now be introduced to clarify the
role of the two DOF system relative to the one DOF system. Let

+ KiK2 + K2Kri

+Kr2)
+ KiKr2

(14)

M = MX + M2

(15)

where M1: M2 axe the distribution of the total mass M. Note that
Mi, M 2 are 2 DOF concepts and that M is a 1 DOF concept. For
the deformation rates in the system let

^
+

K ^
J>t

Journal of Engineering for Industry

rj)M

M2={\-

with
w/yi'

<Ki +K2

(13)

Afj = r)M

+CnCn

(12)

where the dimensionless coefficients pi are functions of the system

parameters. Note that P3, pi = f(C,i, C,-2) and are quite small for
most cam systems. Hence, the dominant coefficients are p and
P2. Equation (12) shows that for S to be smooth, S" must be finite implying that the sixth derivative yi ( "'' must be finite. This
is an exceptionally stringent requirement for any motion specification with the exception of polynomial functions. The weight of
this criterion depends on the magnitude of the coefficient p.
Characterization of this magnitude (and for the others) relative to
the one DOF coefficients will be given in the next section.
Fig. 3(a) shows a graphical representation of the synthesis process for the trapezoidal jerk curve shown in Fig. 3(b). It is obvious
that the S curve is not smooth (exaggerated for clarity). Yet the S
curve is the required driving function to produce the desired output motion yi at the operating speed ad. It is now apparent that
the designer must strive for a high quality of motion specification
or reduce the magnitude of pi to as small a value as possible.
This is the goal of the remainder of this paper.

,V"

K,K.
l-n-2

+C

s = P 4 y i " " + w i ' " + p 2 yi" + ftV + w i

(6)

which when expanded in terms of equation (5) becomes

M1d!lL+^dy1+Ki+K'

The system parameters Mi, M2, K1 . . . are all constants for the
synthesis process, so that a more compact form for the synthesis
equation is possible as

1 =

- = X A

NOVEMBER 1975 /

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

(16)

1177

1.0

<9

V2)
/

yj

s* /
.;>

0
Fig. 4

.5

7/
3

1.0

Normalized influence contour chart for pt and first term of p2

Fig. 6

Now, the pi become

A2 = = (1 - x)A

(17)
PO = {1 + \

where the total deformation rate A is given by

A = A, + A, =

Normalized influence contour chart for p 4 and second term of p2

1
K

Cr2 = ( l - y ) C r

p3 ={[rj(l -y)+r(l-v)lx(l-X)}}u.^m
fli = {77(1 - TJ)X(1 - \ ) }

The values M, K, Cr pertain to the 1 DOF model as represented

in equation (1). The distribution parameters rj, A, 7 represent the
relative significance of the 2 DOF concepts (Mi, M2, Ki, . . . J
with respect to the 1 DOF concepts (M, K, Cr). These parameters
are dimensionless and bounded by 0 and 1 to make the ideal vehicle of classifying the nature of the 2 DOF system.
Two additional symbols are required to transform the formulation of the pt. These pertain to the return spring coefficients and
are
(22)
KjK
\
1
(23)
\=KrjK

(24a)

+ {r(l-y)x(l-\)}(ic2(24c)

where
(21)

\ ) }

p 2 = {TJ[1 + (1 - x)XA r 2 ] + [1 - TJ][1 - X][l + X A r ) ] } M m

(20)

Cr = C r j + C, 2

r i

p, = {y[l + (1 - X)XA,J2 ] ++ [1
x][l
[ l-- x
H --yy][l
. + \A
- rjJ } M
(24b)

(18)

In a similar fashion, the friction coefficient distribution is formulated as

C^ = yCr
(19)

+ (1 - X)(^r 2 + ^

Mm2

(24d)
(24e)

It has been noted that K,i, Kr2 <K K so that A r i, Ar2 -> 0 for
most cam follower systems. Then, the pi reduce to

p0 = 1
Pi={y+[l-r][l-x]}fxc

(25a)
(25b)

ft = &? + [l - v)[i - X]}M* + {yd -y)x(i - \)}nc2

(25c)
p 3 = fed - y) + y ( l - 77)][X(1 - X)]} iiclim

(25d)

p4={^(l-7,)x(l-X)}nm
(25e)
Equations (25) clearly show the desired separation of the 1 DOF
concepts p,c, \im from the 2 DOF concepts tj, X, 7. For each of the
Pi coefficients, the quantities within the braces give a concise
evaluation of how dominant the properties of the 2 DOF system

Design Charts for Cam Surface Smoothness

From the 2 DOF synthesis equation, the properties of S are
shown to be related 3 to the properties of y i by the formula

:<*>

=/(V^ } )

(26)

Hence, if the cam surface is to be smooth, the higher order properties of the specified motion $t must be well defined or the fit
coefficients (particularly p 4 , pa) must approach zero. For critical
design, both of these conditions should be approached as closely
as possible.
Design charts in Figs. 4-6 give a graphic picture of the role of
the distribution parameters in P2, P3, Pi, respectively. Each of
these charts have been normalized so that the maximum displayed value is unity. The normalization factors are 1, 4, 16 for
P2, P3, Pi, respectively. While the charts help the designer to
quickly arrive at an estimate of the />,-, their major value is to
0

'

.8

1.0

A
Fig. 5

1178

Normalized influence contour chart for pz

NOVEMBER 1975

For the n DOF system this becomes S lft) = /6<:L(ft + 2 " ) J

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

0
0

.2

.4

.6

.8

.2

'

.4

'

'

.8

"

1.0

X
Fig. 7

1.0
Fig. 8

Normalized influence coutour chart for <r4 and second term of a2

Normalized influence contour chart for p3

show the designer how to change the values of the distribution

parameters in order to improve system operation. It must be emphasized that improvement of the two DOF parameters must
never be achieved at the expense of increasing the one DOF parameters Mm and fic-

of the analytic treatment of dynamic synthesis for the elementary

2 DOF model. These are:
1. In every case, minimize fim. Never increase fim to improve
the quality of the parameters for the 2 DOF system.
2. Use dynamic synthesis which may be presented conceptually in terms of the charts and the synthesis equation as

D e s i g n C h a r t s for C a m S u r f a c e F o r c e S m o o t h n e s s
An additional criterion for good system operation is cam surface force smoothness. Unusual peaks, jumps, or rapid oscillations
of this force function can be damaging to the component materials, create unwanted noise, and reduce operational accuracy. The
vertical component FK of the contact force is given by
M2C

+MiC

+Mi(Kt

+Kr2)

*V = ^f^ V '"+
M2(Ki

+KTi)

V c ,

sp-W"

Vi

+ CriCr

"VV
Cr2(Ki + KrJ + Cri(Kt + KrJ
+

Tr

W^l'

Ki
+

KxKn

+ KxKr2

KrKn
yt+Pt+

K,

P2 (27)

or symbolically
(>)
i=0

+ P, +P,

(28)

The * implies best design for the choice of the distribution parameters X 1, r\ - 0. This means to put the mass M as close to
the cam as possible and the spring K as far away as possible.
Dashed arrows denote increasing contour values.
3. The 2 DOF design is dominated by the magnitude of p 4 .
From Fig. 6, it is obvious that X = \ , 77 = % is the worst condition. This means that equal masses M = M2 and equal springs
Ki = K2 produce the worst cam follower system; i.e., a system
least like a 1 DOF system.

The special use of the A denominator preserves the dimensionless

nature of the a* coefficients. With the assumption that A r l , A r 2
-* 0, the at become
0

o-2 = Hm + W U

M,=>M ii

(29a)
(29b)

-y)}^2

ff3 ={[?(l - r ) + y ( l -?7)]x}MmMc

(29c)
(29d)

M 2 *M
A2=-A
7=>o, Xt*o

A2=>A:
^zs-o.X^.!

17=5.1, X=J>I

X
b) M near
A away

c) M away
A away

V=>l,

Js
X=*-0

a 4 = {77(1 - 7?)x} fim2

Charts for the influence of the distribution parameters in the
braces for <r2, as, <n are given in Figs. 7 and 8 with normalization
factors 1 and 4, respectively. As with the pt charts, the at charts
quickly show regions of best design in terms of the distribution
parameters.

a) M near
A near

M - most of system mass,

Conclusions for D e s i g n
The following suggestions for design are made as generalization

Journal of Engineering for Industry

A -

d) M away
A near

most of system deformation

Fig. 9 Conditions where two-degrees-of-freedom systems approach

one-degree-of-freedom systems

NOVEMBER 1975

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

1179

4. Generally, the designer can ignore the role of pa and pi

since friction should be kept to a low minimum for efficient operation. Exceptions can occur as with Coulomb friction used in
over-head valve springs to reduce surging. As a consequence the
distribution parameter 7 is of nominal importance.
5. In addition to p4, the coefficient P2 can be used as a secondary criterion. Peaks in the y" function tend to enhance the importance of P2- Fig. 6 clearly shows that A - 1 and rj -* 0 is the
best choice for good design.
6. Smoothness in y"" is critical to smoothness in $S for a synthesized 2 DOF system where p 4 is not close to zero. Use higher
order polynomial motion specification and then manufacture the
cam to the highest possible quality (0.0001 in. or better).
7. An additional criterion for design is the smoothness of the
contact force FK represented here analytically in terms of the <T;
charts as

*,

*r
4A

7)-*0.

9. The distribution parameters i), X are the key to good 2 DOF

design. It has been shown that ij = 1k, X = % is the worst condition. Fig. 9 shows the system configurations when the distribution
parameters TJ, X approach the bounds of their ranges; i.e., when

NOVEMBER 1975

(a) Put the cam as close to the output as possible,

(b) Use as few links and pin joints beyond the cam as possible,
(c) Remove unessential rollers in contact with the cam because
they put a large deformation near the cam
(d) Support required rollers as rigidly as possible and eliminate
any cantilever type roller mountings.
(e) Use the lightest available materials with the highest possible modulus of elasticity.

References

The * for X - 0, rj -* 1 represents best design for the force criterion when Cr2 = 0. Dashed arrows denote increasing contour
values.
8. The contradiction between smoothness in y"" (the p/) and
in FK (the at) is primarily due to the role of 0-3. Hence, if CVi =
Cr2 = 0, this contradiction vanishes in favor of the values X 1,

1180

the system approaches 1 DOF. The best design is given in Fig. 9b

where ij = 0, A = 1 with most of the deformation away from the
cam and most of the mass near the cam. The worst system is
given in Fig. 9(d) where ?? = 1 and X = 0.
10. All the above suggestions indicate that the 2 DOF system
should be transformed as much as possible into a 1 DOF system,
i.e.,

1 Matthew, G. K., and Tesar, D., "One Degree of Freedom Cam System Synthesis and Analysis," Submitted to the Journal of Mechanisms
and Machine Theory, March 1974.
2 Matthew, G. K., and Tesar, D., "Formalized Matrix Method for Nth
Derivative Trapezoidal Motion Specifications for Cams," The Third World
Congress for the Theory of Machines and Mechanisms, Vol. H, Paper
H-19, September 1971, pp. 247-260.
3 Matthew, G. K., "The Dynamic Synthesis and Analysis of Modeled
Cam System," Master's Thesis, University of Florida, March 1973,
4 Tesar, D., and Matthew, G. K., "The Dynamic Synthesis, Analysis
and Design of Modeled Cam Systems," Manuscript submitted for publication, March, 1974.
5 Barkan, P., "Calculation of High Speed Valve Motion with a Flexible
Overhead Linkage," SAE Quarterly Transactions, Vol. 61, 1953, pp. 687700.
6 Chen, F. Y., "Analysis and Design of Cam-Driven Mechanisms with
Nonlinearities," Ph.D. Dissertation, Purdue University, 1972.
7 Rothbart, H. A., "CamsDesign, Dynamics and Accuracy," New
York, Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956.
8 Wunderlich, W. W., "Contributions to the Geometry of Cam Mechanisms with Oscillating Followers," Journal of Mechanisms, Vol. 6, 1971,
pp.1-20.

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms